In Reply: Starting insulin therapy (original) (raw)
Related papers
Diabetes & Metabolism, 2006
There are many reasons to believe that in the near future, the treatment of patients with Type 2 diabetes will be characterised by an increased use of insulin therapy. To ensure that insulin regimens are acceptable to patients, and implemented by physicians, they should be as simple and efficient as possible. Simplicity is synonymous with the regimen of once-daily basal insulin glargine given at any time of the day (at the same time each day). With such a strategy, the dose is adjusted by titrating to target fasting blood glucose values of 5.0-7.2 mmol/L (90-130 mg/dL). When these targets can no longer be achieved with reasonable doses of long-acting insulin, a rapid-acting insulin analogue should be added at meal times. A step-by-step strategy can be used; it is recommended that initially, a single daily prandial bolus of a rapid-acting insulin analogue is administered before the meal that leads to the highest post-meal blood glucose excursions. Further boluses can be added at other meal times as necessary, i.e, when postmeal blood glucose values remain above 10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) and 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) at mid-morning and 2h-post-lunch or post-dinner times, respectively. This stepwise strategy may eventually lead to a standard basal-bolus regimen with 3 pre-meal injections of rapid-acting insulin analogues, a potentially small trade-off for achieving fairly-well controlled diabetes.
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2018
To evaluate the glycaemic control achieved by prandial once-daily insulin glulisine injection timing adjustment, based on a continuous glucose monitoring sensor, in comparison to once-daily insulin glulisine injection before breakfast in patients with type 2 diabetes who are uncontrolled with once-daily basal insulin glargine. This was a 24-week open-label, randomized, controlled, multicentre trial. At the end of an 8-week period of basal insulin optimization, patients with HbA1c ≥ 7.5% and FPG < 130 mg/dL were randomized (1:1) to either arm A (no sensor) or arm B (sensor) to receive 16-week intensified prandial glulisine treatment. Patients in arm A received pre-breakfast glulisine, and patients in arm B received glulisine before the meal with the highest glucose elevation based on sensor data. The primary outcome was mean HbA1c at week 24 and secondary outcomes included rates of hypoglycaemic events and insulin dosage. A total of 121 patients were randomized to arm A (n = 61) o...
Benefits of timely basal insulin control in patients with type 2 diabetes
Journal of Diabetes and its Complications, 2015
Worldwide, both underdiagnosis and undertreatment leave many patients exposed to long periods of hyperglycemia and contribute to irreversible diabetes complications. Early glucose control reduces the risk of both macrovascular and microvascular complications, while tight control late in diabetes has little or no macrovascular benefit. Insulin therapy offers the most potent antihyperglycemic effect of all diabetes agents, and has a unique ability to induce diabetes remission when used to normalize glycemia in newly diagnosed patients. When used as a second-line therapy, basal insulin is more likely to safely and durably maintain A1C levels ≤7% than when insulin treatment is delayed. The use of basal insulin analogs is associated with a reduced risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain compared to NPH insulin and pre-mixed insulin. Patient selftitration algorithms can improve glucose control while decreasing the burden on office staff. Finally, recent data suggest that addition of incretin agents to basal insulin may improve glycemic control with very little, if any increased risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain.
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 2003
Background: The glycaemic control of thrice daily treatment with premixed biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) without other antidiabetic therapy was tested in type 2 diabetic patients, in order to compare the glucose control of a 'high' mixture (BIAsp 70) or a 'medium' mixture (BIAsp 50) (70 or 50% soluble IAsp and 30 or 50% protamine-crystallized IAsp, respectively) administered just before dinner. Aim: To compare these regimens to conventional 30 : 70 premixture on a twice a day basis. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, two-period crossover study included 16 patients with type 2 diabetes. Twenty four-hour serum glucose and insulin profiles were obtained thrice: (1) after a one-week run-in period with biphasic human insulin (BHI) 30/70 twice daily (run-in), (2) after 4 weeks of treatment with thrice daily BIAsp 70 before breakfast, lunch and dinner (Dinner70 regimen) and (3) after 4 weeks of BIAsp 70 before breakfast and lunch and BIAsp 50 before dinner (Dinner50). Results: Daytime average serum glucose was lower with Dinner70 compared to run-in (9.6 AE 0.39 mmol/l vs. 11.2 AE 0.61 mmol/l, p < 0.05). Postprandial glucose excursions after breakfast and lunch were lower, but fasting morning glucose was higher during the treatment periods than in the run-in period. Twenty four-hour C-peptide AUC was considerably lower during both treatment periods than in the run-in period (run-in/Dinner50 ratio 1.29 [1.08; 1.54] p < 0.01; run-in/Dinner70 ratio 1.31 [1.08;1.58], p < 0.01). Conclusions: Switching the dinner dose to BIAsp 50 did not alter overall glucose control significantly from that provided with BIAsp 70. Exploratory analyses between the two active treatment regimens and run-in/BHI indicate that thrice daily BIAsp 70 administration: (1) for optimization of the night-time control, the dinner dose needs adjustment or replacement by a premixed insulin with a larger proportion of basal insulin than BIAsp 50 and (2) none of the premixtures adequately provide for both the evening meal and overnight requirements.
Comparison of single- and split-dose insulin regimens with 24-hour monitoring
The Journal of Pediatrics, 1981
TheJournalofPEDIATRICS Comparison of single-and split-dose regimens with 24-hour monitoring insulin It has been asserted that twice daily injections of mixed insulin provide better blood glucose control than one. To compare the two regimens we conducted a random-order, double-crossover trial in ten diabetic children. Each regimen lasted for six weeks, concluding with a hospital evaluation. Control at home was assessed by a urine log and determination of glycosylated hemoglobin. Control in the hospital was assessed with measurements of quantitative urinary glucose, serum lipids, and by 24-hour blood sampling for glucose, C-peptide, and counterregulatory hormones. For the group as a whole, none of the indices of control demonstrated a significant advantage for either regimen. Individually, several children did appear to achieve better control on one regimen than the other. Indices of control at home did not consistently predict control in the hospital. In the hospital, the largest increases in glucose concentration followed breakfast (mean rise 148 mg/dl), and standardized exercise invariably reduced ptasma glucose values (mean decrement 60 mg/dl). C-Peptide concentrations were low, but higher values were associated with better control Although a split insulin regimen may improve metabolic control in some patients, this study did not demonstrate a substantial advantage for the majority of subjects over the short period of the trials.